Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

This just in…

Posted in:

Illinois

* 3:01 pm - I’ll try to get a copy posted soon…

The Chicago Urban League is challenging Illinois’ school funding system. The group filed a civil rights lawsuit Wednesday in Cook County against the state and the Illinois State Board of Education.

It claims funding schools based on property tax revenue is unconstitutional and violates the 2003 Illinois Civil Rights Act.

League president Cheryle Jackson says minority children aren’t getting quality education. She wants changes to make funding more equitable.

* 3:09 pm - You can click here to download the lawsuit.

* 3:31 pm - From the Illinois Federation of Teachers…

We have not had a chance to take a close look at the lawsuit filed today, but we did support the previous lawsuit in 1990 that challenged the constitutionality of Illinois system of funding schools.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:02 pm

Comments

Go get ‘em! Other than a con-con, I think this is the only way ed funding reform will ever get accomplished.

Comment by Vote Quimby! Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:08 pm
Say is that the same Cheryle Jackson . . .?

Comment by Captain Flume Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:14 pm
My fear is the perception that more money defines a “quality” education. Several factors contribute to student success, many much higher in importance than money: high community and family involvement; stable environment - both family and community. I don’t believe the statistics show “throwing” more money at this problem will result in greater success.

Comment by Money, Money, Money Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:14 pm
From skimming this suit it appears to be based on a theory that minorities recieve less funding under the IL system.

Having seen some of the donwstate schools I am not sure that proposition is accurate. Interesting case to follow. Big law firm on the side of the plaintiffs.

Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:19 pm
===Say is that the same Cheryle Jackson . . .?===

Yep.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:22 pm
Is she still employed by the State?

Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:25 pm
Cheryle, I wondered what happened to ya.
Gee, if she cared so much perhaps she should have tried to make this part of Blagojevich’s agenda when she was allegedly a top aide/deputy governor.

It’ll be interesting to see if this Supreme Court takes a different view than the previous Supreme Court that chose not to get into the business deciding who should get what in the state budget.

Comment by Frank Booth Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:27 pm
Folks take pot shots at Cheryle but that doesn’t address the need. I applaud this move.

Comment by wndycty Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:31 pm
I agree with MMM. I hate when people think that throwing more money into a school is the answer. Yes, money is important but it is not the only component. I attended a MMD school and a huge part of the problem is lack of parental involvement and a culture that does not support academic success. A lot of my classmates did not think it was important to get good grades because their parents did not care and it wasn’t “cool”. Do up to date educational resources matter? Yes, but what good are they if the student doesn’t think that an education matters and therefore doesn’t pay attention, doesn’t do homework, etc.

Comment by Me Too Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:36 pm
Reinforces past discrimination

Given that the vast majority of Latinos in this state moved here AFTER the various CR laws of the 1960s, this will be hard to show.

It also begs the question: Since local towns are creatures of the state, in what way is their money not “state” money?

It also begs the question of “can they meet the standards if they used better teaching methods”.

What is really infuriating about this suit is the implication that hosing poor WHITE students is ok, but poor minority ones is not.

Since, after all, their point is really about POOR students, not minority ones.

Comment by Pat collins Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:38 pm
To MMM and Me Too. This is the classic response to this issue - the real problem is “the families”, so let’s blame them. OK - I agree with you 100%, the real problem IS the families. Now what? If we’re willing to let one generation of ill-raised, ill-schooled children beget another one, ad infinitum, then I guess the answer is, nothing. And surely you don’t believe we can scold or shame uneducated parents into suddenly behaving like “good” parents. Not gonna happen. So, unless you’re willing to just live with a permanent underclass, something must be done. And that something will involve resources. And they will largely be delivered through the school system - the only place in the conveyor belt where we have the power of mandatory attendance (at least, from age 5 to 16). So - yes, the problem is the families. But, yes, the solution is more resources.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:42 pm
I’ll defer commenting on the lawsuit until I can thoroughly read it, but must say that their timing is terrible.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:45 pm
I support extreme measures for this dire situation. Attacking disparities in educational funding is the first step. I hope the Urban League takes a comprehensive look at the “education” problem.

This is a chance for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in the state to come together on a critical issue. As a lawyer, I anxiously await the court’s ruling.

Comment by Black Ivy Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:50 pm
I don’t understand. There’s a Democratic governor and GA through the votes of folks who want more money for needy schools, urban and rural. Forget the courts, demand that the folks you elected deliver.

You’re not victims, you’re kingmakers. Cowboy up.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:55 pm
Anonymous,

Yes to some degree it is the families, but perhaps almost as important, it is the economic segregation. Unless we, as Illinoisans, are willing to crack that nut, we won’t see much benefit from adding money to poorer districts.

There is research that shows, take a poor child, send him to a school that is predominantly middle class or higher, and he’ll do pretty well. Send him to a school with a majority of peers that are as poor as he is, and he won’t do as well. Take a middle class child and send him to a school that is predominantly poor, and he will do poorer too. Unfortunately, there is no way to rearrange the CPS students into non-economically segregated units given their demographics.

Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:57 pm
Notice the its the families fault people never point to a school doing incredibly well with low levels of funding. They also assume that the kids doing well in the highly funded schools have good families.

Funding is a large component of class size, teacher quality and course offerings. As I said before, lets pump all schools up to the New Trier level (inclusing the corresponding k-8), I bet you wil see significant improvement in education.

Of course if more money does not help, it begs the question why wealthy districts are not reducing their tax burdens so that they pay less money and bring the per student comparitive average down to match other districts. They apparently feel the coressponding extra money applied to their schools is providing additional benefit.

Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:57 pm
The difference between this lawsuit and the 1990 lawsuit is that in 1990, the state was providing roughly 44% of the funding for local schools, if memory serves.

Now, the state is providing 29% of the funding.

From the Illinois Constitution (Article X, Section 1):

A fundamental goal of the People of the State is the educational development of all persons to the limits of their capacities.
The State shall provide for an efficient system of high quality public educational institutions and services.
Education in public schools through the secondary level shall be free. There may be such other free education as the General Assembly provides by law.
The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education.

Emphasis added. I expect the lawsuit to attack on both points.

However, for those of you looking for speedy relief, lets be clear:

1. This case will likely take two years to reach the Supreme Court.

2. The Court can order the state to take action, and would likely dictate a minimum per pupil funding level, but can’t dictate a funding mechanism.

3. Even if the Court orders the Dept. of Education to provide adequate funding, it could be years before a solution works its way through.

4. The court order would provide political cover for revenue enhancements, but its not clear what action, if any, the courts could take to enforce an order against the legislature or governor, because of the separation of powers clauses.

5. One drawback of a lawsuit is that the Governor can say “There’s a case working its way through the courts, lets wait and find out what they say.”
Am i forgetting anything?

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:16 pm
Ghost - I will take the New Trier bet. I simply do not believe more money will solve the socio-economic situation of the poorer districts and/or the demographics associated with it. Further, the New Trier scenario is not a valid comparison; money or no money - the demographics are extremely different. As noted by Me Too - there is an emphasis on academic success, gaining the competitive in the classroom.

As for the tax burden, we know all to well that sometimes adding money to the tax revenue is as much to buy new stuff (facilities, shiny objects) than provide more educational opportunities.

Lastly, while I have no basis for this question…what kind of property taxes do all those skyscrapers, condos, factories, in Chicago generate? There is a limited number of children that live there.

Comment by MMM Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:21 pm
There is research that shows, take a poor child, send him to a school that is predominantly middle class or higher, and he’ll do pretty well. Send him to a school with a majority of peers that are as poor as he is, and he won’t do as well.

So, importing poverty via our immigration policy is a bad idea? Wow, never would have guessed.

Even in Malaysia they think methods matter:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/jan/18/tefl.ianmackinnon

Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:22 pm
===I simply do not believe more money will solve the socio-economic situation of the poorer districts and/or the demographics associated with it.===

You don’t believe it because it’s never been tried here. So, your argument is completely based on conjecture, and nothing but.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:25 pm
sometimes adding money to the tax revenue is as much to buy new stuff

When I lived in D300, I was appalled to see the computer room had laptops instead of desktops. An obvious cost savings.

Actually, I was appalled that an ELEMENTARY school had a computer room at all. But I know few will agree with me.

Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:25 pm
Keeping the issue of public education funding, and the state’s role in it, active and in political leaders’ faces gives the discussion some real energy, and possibly some needed pushing for resolution.

Comment by Captain Flume Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:28 pm
Dear Money, money, money:

Um, who has suggested that “throwing” money? All of the recent funding proposals have been linked to proven strategies that improve student performance.

To whit:

1. Why is it that conservatives think the phrase “You get what you pay for” applies to every sector of the economy except education?

2. Do think its a coincidence that the greatest teacher shortages are for math, science and computer sciences, skills that are in high demand in the private sector and pay much, much more? As well as special education, which faces increased demand to deal with the growing population of autistic children, and requires advanced training beyond a bachelor’s degree?

3. Do you think its a coincidence that the highest performing schools in the state are also the ones that spend the most money per pupil?

Yes, there is a link between student achievement and family. Actually two:

1. Parents’ income

2. Parents’ educational attainment

Blame the parents if you want too, but it doesn’t get us any closer to a solution, unless you’re planning on a massive program to send the parents of underachieving kids to college for free or give them all raises.

And for the love of all that is holy, let’s try to keep in mind that 1 in 4 adult Americans is functionally illiterate. That means they can’t read the want ads, let alone create a resume.

We can keep doing the same things that we’ve been doing for the past 30 years and expect a different result, but if you want to see the Illinois economy and our tax base grow, we’re going to have to invest in education that prepares ALL kids to be part of the global economy.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:28 pm
I simply do not believe more money will solve the socio-economic situation of the poorer districts and/or the demographics associated with it.

I am actually open to the idea that it DOES take extra effort for those schools to replace the better home environment that intact families and committed parents would provide.

But I think that means teaching methods geared to that, and perhaps some tracking to let students learn at faster/slower paces. No confidence that those methods would be used at all.

Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:29 pm
When you take out very wealthy neighborhoods like, say, Barrington, Lake Forest, etc, and when you control for local cost of living differences, how disparate is the funding? It’s fine to rail against rich white folks when you want to get some attention but the rich will always be with us, although, as time goes on, they will be more diverse. The question, assuming more funding is the answer, is how to get it for everybody without saddling the middle class with a huge tax increase to pay for it. And, assuming an influx of huge sums from somewhere, how to prevent the state’s massive education bureaucracy from wasting most of it. As they will do, if not watched with extreme attention.

It’s not just urban minorities who are not happy with local schools by the way. It’s no longer possible to be certain of a high quality education for your kids just by moving to a middle class suburb..many suburbs, even most are having their own struggles with cost and quality.

Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:30 pm
Yellow Dog, you covered a lot of ground. This is just another sideshow. Add it to the New Trier stunt.

I’m starting to suspect bad faith with these distractions. Cover, indeed.

The solution is in the GA and the governor’s office. Add the Man on Five.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:33 pm
Cassandra, why not check yourself before posting a question and then expounding on the topic as if you already know the answer?

And Pat Collins makes an excellent point. If there are horrible neighborhoods and some irresponsible parents, then schools require more resources, including innovations, not less. What they get now is less.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:33 pm
===The solution is in the GA and the governor’s office.===

Sometimes it requires three branches to get something done.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:37 pm
All of the recent funding proposals have been linked to proven strategies that improve student performance.

Like connected math? I spent most of the last two years telling my daughters how much to IGNORE of their homework because it was STUPID and the methods (lattice especially) were silly.

Why is it that conservatives think the phrase “You get what you pay for” applies to every sector of the economy except education?

So the reform includes bonus for teachers and principals who meet standards? And less for those who do not? A GE style bottom 10% plan?

Do think its a coincidence that the greatest teacher shortages are for math, science and computer sciences

No there is not a shortage. There is a shortage of people to teach in inner cities, but I know for a FACT that most NW suburban districts have no such shortage.

I know several who apply yearly and only get interest from Aurora and Chicago.

Do you think its a coincidence that the highest performing schools in the state are also the ones that spend the most money per pupil?

We don’t need everyone to be at New Trier standards. If they can meet, say, D348 standard, that should be ok.

Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:38 pm
PC, just because they don’t use your specially approved standards doesn’t mean there aren’t some good ideas out there.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:44 pm
I didn’t say I knew the answer. As a matter of fact, I live in one of those suburbs where the the struggles over cost and quality are are a major topic of community discourse. People are unable to afford their long-time homes because of their inability to pay astronomical property taxes–yet the test scores aren’t that great.

What I am saying is that the problem of public education quality is not just a problem for inner city minorities and I’m not sure it should be
framed that way. Only the rich these days can be
assured of a top quality education for their kids
unless the kid is a genius and can write his own ticket public or private. This is increasingly a problem for the middle class (of all races) as well.

Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:45 pm
Stop pointing to wealthy school districts.

How much money does the average student recieve in state funding? Now, how much money does the state give per student in poor school districts?

If there is an inequity, prove it. If this impacts quality, prove it.

But I know that poor school districts get more funding per student than the average state student already. So there is already a funding inequity favoring poor school districts.

So how can equally funding all students help when poor districts already get more than average?

Even with state funding, some poor school districts do not get enough from their property tax base. So how much more do they think they should get? How could this be considered equitable funding?

Across the country we are seeing these arguments. For over 20 years. Many states have been taken to court and forced to become more equitable funding-wise. Did it help? It has been 20 years in some instances. What were the results?

There hasn’t been a measurable difference after courts changed state education funding. Education is far more complex than just handing out money.

I want my poor neighbors to get more for better results. Unfortunately no one has really shown that this approach works even after all these years.

Then we’ll talk.

Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:47 pm
Rarely will you find suburban schools that are as ineffective and underfunded and poorly led as many Chicago schools.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:48 pm
===So how can equally funding all students help when poor districts already get more than average?===

That is a specious argument. It’s not about the total state funding, it’s the total funding.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:50 pm
==Sometimes it requires three branches to get something done.==

Rich, maybe in a case such as Brown v. Board of Education, but this is essentially a political question, as in who pays what and who gets what. I don’t think there is any fundamental interpretation of law or the constitution needed.

What I find flabbergasting, among other things, is that the Dems are getting a pass.

I covered the last lawsuit. Then, there was a Pate-dominated Senate, (whether he was in majority or not), so nothing happening there; and a GOP governor who had to protect his right flank (whether Big or Little Jim).

That’s not the case today.

As YDD pointed out, no matter how this goes, if anything happens in the courts, it will take years. There’s a Dem-controlled, allegedly sympathetic government now. I think rural GOP types would play ball, too.

As Franky Five Angels said, “Let’s do it now, when we’ve got the muscle.”

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 5:07 pm
Agreed Rich - an opinion based on conjecture. However, your comment is no different.

“If there are horrible neighborhoods and some irresponsible parents, then schools require more resources, including innovations, not less. What they get now is less.”

There is little proof more money works. I would feel more comfortable if this lawsuit or other resource provided a basis for influx of dollars. Not just, let’s give a try since nothing else seems to be working.

Have a plan; build the business case; note success stories and how more money works - then ask for it.

Comment by MMM Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 5:08 pm
Catholic schools in chicago spend on avg less per student then public school but somehow the students at the catholic schools do better. Its not money that makes the student do well it is concerned and involved parents. If you dont stay involved with your children they will not do as well.

Comment by fed up Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 5:16 pm
From the outset this has always seemed to me to be a battle between the unions and the business community (taxpayer “advocates”, if you will). On the surface it seems if the unions would give on the issues of pay for performance, certification and tenure that the business community might relax a little on the tax swap/tax increase idea.

I could be completely wrong, but all this mumbo jumbo about “show me where the money makes the difference” and YDDs IFT-sounding rationale for providing more money without more accountability seem to highlight the exact reason we’re where we are today.

Just sayin’, of course.

Comment by Thought Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 5:26 pm
Fed Up, Catholic schools don’t have to take on all comers.

By the way, how are we measuring success here? There are plenty of success stories in the Chicago Public Schools. Small, cash-strapped rural schools, too. But there are also hard cases the private schools won’t touch that bring down the averages.

We’re talking educational opportunities — books, computers, labs, science, math, music, pe, extra-curricular and yes, special needs. It’s a good investment. What’s the downside?

I guarantee a better return than all that free oil we’re getting from Iraq for our five billion a month investment. Or the return we’ll get for opening the vaults at the New York Fed for all the cheap hustlers from the “good families and schools” who got us all in trouble with their greed and Ivy League stupidity.

What’s the deal about schools that get people so riled up?

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 5:55 pm
The downside I see is it does provide an excuse to do nothing (”We need to wait to see what the courts say. They might overturn any actions we take now”)

Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 5:56 pm
- wordslinger -
In the Land of the Blind,the One Eyed Man is King !

Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 5:58 pm
Too bad Aaron Chambers will not be around to cover this one, given that the Rockford schools lawsuit might have provided some valuable lessons in how a suit like this can change an educational system — and what the unexpected (and unwanted) consequences might be.

And brava to Cheryle for taking this one on. It took some guts.

Comment by soccermom Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 6:18 pm
Steve, I agree and think the lawsuit is a sham for just that reason. It’s been tried and failed.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 6:18 pm
Don’t think Jackson was with the Senate
She was one of the SpinSisters. I think the first to leap to safety.
The old law sought to have a court say the state constitution meant the state needed to fund 51% of the school tab. It got tossed
This could be another way to reach the Michigan style doomsday (which produced a sales tax hike and no real solution on school funding)

Comment by 2ConfusedCrew Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 6:37 pm
It’s not just about a comparison between the suburbs and the city, compare city neighborhood schools.

There are many good students in Chicago Public Schools, yes, even in neighborhood schools. Does this mean that these schools where good students attend are better than other schools? Maybe. there are many factors that
go into making one school better than another. since all
CPS schools are from the same tax base (Chicago, shrinking though it is from getting TIFed to death), and receive approximately the same money as other schools, what is the difference? much of it
is parental involvement, and, yes, i know that this may mean more money for some schools in Chicago than other Chicago schools. but parents can help or undo what teachers do.
some parents seem to tolerate things that others would not.
makes a difference.

unfortunately, some things cannot change. people who have better financial situations usually have more time to get involved with their children. but everyone has to play their part, including communities in general.

also, everyone, poor and rich, should get over the notion that their kid can be ivy league material. just not possible. read, write, do the math. we need basics. i’m not advocating going
back to steering kids to vocational classes. this issue drives
teachers nuts everywhere….parents who think their kid is something they are not. be positive but realistic.

but, for more money, I think of a city with less crime and how that could make more money available to allow the Chicago Public Schools to take more in tax dollars. The budget of the City of Chicago is overwhelmed with police activities. if we had to spend less on crime fighting, we would have more for other things, more space to let the CPS take up tax dollars.

While Meeks and C.Jackson are at it, get people to stop the shooting and start the learning. it’s wildly optimistic, but the police activity in Chicago eats up such a huge chunk of
government money. if we believe correctly that the war in Iraq
ending would mean more money for other things, we know that
if the thugs put down the guns eventually we would have lots
more money for education. hey, i can dream……

Comment by Amy Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 6:55 pm
===There is little proof more money works.===

There is a whole lot of proof that what’s happening now does not.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 6:59 pm
YDD,
That was the most honest, coherent, well written, and correct post you have ever contributed. I will never call you names or insult you again!

Comment by Bill Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 7:01 pm
Court action is better than no action, which is what has been happening with no lawsuits.

Comment by Captain Flume Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 7:02 pm
YDD, I agree in principle with a lot of what you said. The issues here are complex. More money is part of the solution, but not all of it.

I do think your timeline is incredibly optimistic. Two years to a Supreme Court decision seems awfully fast. And when the Supreme Court rules, it could be a long time thereafter until an actual solution is put in place (in several states it’s taken multiple back-and-forths between the courts and the legislature).

My guess: if the people vote for con-con, this suit finds a way to drag on past the convention. If they don’t, the courts won’t be in a rush to get much of anything resolved before the 2011 legislative session, when the expectation will be that a new governor will deal with this.

Comment by Trent Green's Clipboard Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 7:06 pm
Short of getting the Nuns, parochial school principals, and the mafia to team up and provide an Education they can’t refuse, I see no clearcut one size fits all solution. However the Nuns and the Outfit should be considered.

Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 7:13 pm
Win or lose the law suit has some merit. Senator Meeks’ concerns are legitiamte, even if some may disagree with his tactics.

We know what needs to be done, but lack the political courage and will to do what needs to be done. Yellow Dog made an excellent point regarding the decline in the percentage of state funding from 44% to 29% in the last two decades or so.

Soemething’s seriously amiss, and we do need to try to change the status quo somehow. Like the famous U.S. Supremw Court decision pertaining to pornography, the State Supreme Court Justices may not know how to legally define primary responsibility precisely, but may recognize inadequate State funding of public education when they see it. 29% seesm to be prima facie inadequate, despite the illinois Constituion’s ambiguity. I give credit to Senator Meeks for stirring the pot/trying to shake things up!

Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 7:22 pm
The way Illinois funds schools does hurt children who live in low income communities. It does not have anything to do with race. Many white and latino children go to schools that can’t offer the same advantages as children from wealthier communities.

Comment by Downstate is in IL Too Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 8:18 pm
Rev.Meeks is at the church right now calling for a boycott of the state lottery.

Comment by Bill Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 8:38 pm
lets not forget that if the plaintiffs succeed, they get attorney fees.

Now if Illinois changes its educational funding before the suit reaches a conclusion, it moots out the lawsuit and allows the state to avoid millions in legal fees. There is incentive to not wait for the courts, but to act preemptorily.

Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 8:46 pm
Bill, your last post is your best ever.

You are kidding, right?

Nice to see the CUL take on a serious cause. Last time AA heard from them, they were launching protests against John Rogers’ Ariel Investments losing State pension cash because he couldn’t outperform a passbook savings. Way to engage, Cheryle. (BTW, she may have been on the communications staff, but she was no SpinSister.)

It’s hard to be “against” more funding for better schools, but the actions of CPS and CTU leaders make it tough for old AA to warm to this lawsuit.

The CUL is silent on the overloaded central administration of the CPS. For those of you who think “Paul took care of that,” or “Arne took care of that,” grab a glass of Kool-Aid and read their budget.

CPS and CTU share governance of the Chicago Teachers Pension Fund, with better bennies than downstate TRS but lower investment performance. (AA is guessing they didn’t boot Ariel.) The Chicago Board of Ed recently sued the State, for the second time, alleging the State pension funding formula is unconstitutional special legislation because downstate TRS gets more cash than the CTPF, which only gets a State contribution when their “funded ratio” falls below 90%. Because of those better bennies, the State had to start paying into CTPF a few years ago despite the bull market. They lost the first lawsuit in 2002.

Hmmm..anybody see a pattern here in the litigation?

For the many incredibly dedicated members of the CTU who often go into conditions most of us can’t imagine and give their level best year after year, perhaps the CUL should speak out as forcefully about the CTU civil war-and of their leadership that appears to the TV-watching taxpayer as not smart enough to run a Subway- as they did about Ariel losing a couple million in money management fees.

Looking back to the 90s, the old “51% of the new money” (not the same as 51%, but a lot of people thought it was…)was propped up by the annual pension ramp increases for downstate TRS toward the end of Edgar’s and all of Ryan’s tenure. Education, maybe; classroom, no. That fiscal fudge was chump change compared to the Blago “I’ll raise the foundation level $1000 in my first term.” Oops. (Observers still debate whether or not Blago thinks “foundation level” is a synonym for “crawl space.”)

Fixing the educational system in Illinois in Illinois may indeed take all three branches of government. However, while the third is at work, it’s beyond time to demand some accountability (h/t Jeff Schoenberg) at the ballot box of the ruling political party, who has allowed this to fester on their watch.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 9:59 pm
There is only one way to ‘fund children equally’, and that is to fund children equally.

If you fund the child, and not the bloated, self propagating public employment engine, the parents will find the best way to educate their kids.

If you take the “equal protection clause” of either the US or the Illinois Constitution seriously, there is only one Constitutional way to fund education, and that is to directly fund the child, and not the entirely fictitious concept of an arbitrarily constructed school district.

Of course, the SCOTUS has already punted on this issue, as has the IL Sup. Ct. so the end result will be pumping more money into the School Superintendents “car allowances” that pump up their unwarranted pensions.

Just keep reminding yourself ‘it’s for the children.’ That’s what Meeks does so he can sleep at night.

Comment by Bruno Behrend Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 10:19 pm
Sorry Bruno, “car allowances” don’t count as salary for TRS pension purposes.

Otherwise, nice voucher rant.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 10:37 pm
=== You don’t believe it because it’s never been tried here. So, your argument is completely based on conjecture, and nothing but. ===

You don’t remember Kansas City from 25 years ago? I am in no way defending the current system, but anyone who wants a judge running our school system should think again.

Comment by anon Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 10:39 pm
Bruno,

Vouchers would work great for those students with engaged families. Guess what? Most of those students are probably not doing all that poorly now, maybe not as well as they would in a better funded environment, but still pretty well. What are you going to do with the children whose parents are drug addicts? In gangs? Mentally ill? Completely negligent and unengaged? Abusive? Students who are in foster care? Students who are in Cook County juvenile detention center? How much will each voucher be worth? Will there be any non-religious based schools the vouchers can afford? How will quality be monitored?

Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 10:56 pm
Arthur A., (An appropriate pen name, as AA is was failed organization that enabled Enron)

If I’m wrong that car allowances don’t go toward pension benefits, I’ll gladly admit it. But if a supporter of the current system is making the claim, I’ll take the time to verify it before I take their word for it.

I’m comfortable in the knowledge that the obscene “end-of-career” bumps DO, and that they are unsustainable in any circumstance. Banked “sick days” may be another scheme we can look into.

Nothing qualifies as more of a “rant” than the droning dogma of those defending as the existing system, as your comment does by implication.

I’ll make you the same offer I’ve made to DJW, Bill, Ralph (fake tax swap) Martire, and the host of defenders of our “bureaucracy-based education.”

I’ll debate you anywhere in Illinois in any forum, on the topic of “education funding”, or any other related issue.

Given that I’m sure you will use some lame excuse to decline or evade the issue, the fact remains that every dime that goes toward some oily superintendent’s car allowance is a dime that will never fund the connection of a single neuron in a single child’s head.

The cowardice of the defenders of the existing system is all one needs to see to understand the weakness of their arguments.

Comment by Bruno Behrend Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 1:16 am
Cermack asked: What are you going to do with the children whose parents are drug addicts? In gangs?

To distill your good question down to the issue at hand, you are basically asking “what about the folks that might fall through the cracks in a “child-centered” (as opposed to a bureaucracy-centered) system.

Let me throw that right back at you. Is it your contention that no one is falling through that cracks now?! Would a “drug addict” mom do WORSE allocating her kid’s ed-dollar than Rev. Meeks?

I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’m sure that another dime given to existing system will NOT improve the plight of the kid of the “drug-addict” mom.

They don’t need a larger bureaucracy. They need a choice. The drug-addict parent may not even care about the school that their kids attend, but the 10-20 or 30 parents in the neighborhood that DO will make that poor kids school better than any millions of dollars dumped into the maw of the teachers unions ever will.

Look Cermack, you are asking good, hard questions that deserve a better answer than I can give on a comment on a blog post. With that in mind, I’ll make you the same offer I’ve made every one else who argues this issue.

Set up a presentation, a debate, a forum. Let’s hash it out. I don’t pretend that what advocate is perfect. Perfection doesn’t exist in this instance. My argument is that a ‘child-based’ choice system will out-perform the existing system, and for less money.

I’ll add that the it is the rich and well-heeled that prosper from this system of “educational apartheid”, not the poor.

If the rich wanted vouchers, they would have them already. The rich and the teachers unions feed off of this system of educational apartheid, and that is why 38 years of carping about “educational funding reform” have accomplished nothing for the poor and disadvantaged, while the teachers unions have enriched themselves at the expense of the poor.

Take me up on my offer of a debate. If I’m so wrong, you should wipe the floor with me.

Comment by Bruno Behrend Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 1:42 am
Those kids with the druig addicted parents would benefit more from after school activites (theater, polo, cermaics, music etc). These programs are prevelant in the wealthy public schools but are lackin where they are most needed. Programs to redirect the kids away from drugs, provide outlets for creativity and mentors or adults who can be part of their lives are a substantial aid in dealing with families with bad parents. The Jesse White tumblers help demonstrate this point. Smaller classes also help the teachers to connect and keep kids connected.

The State is littered with superintendents AND assitant SUperintendents who slaries start at someting like 150k, then they get stautorily mandated increase (regardles of funding or performance of their school). We could get rid of these Superintendts their assitants and staffs to cut costs, BUT that still does not solve the problem that each kid should receive the same amount of funding.

We do not need to get rid of the property tax as a funding soruce, we just need to put all the money into one pot and divide it out per student.

Comment by Ghost Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 8:14 am
The problem is not discrimination for minorities, it is equal protection for all children regardless of race or socioeconomic status. Why should an all white school downstate who is underfunded be less important then a urban school? Equal protection is equal protection regardless or race.

The real problem is the solution. The property tax swap creates a major problem in that it may prevent schools from raising taxes to make their schools better than average. I don’t like it that schools have swimming pools, when mine didn’t have AC, but if the people in that district want to pay for it, let them.

Rich is on point that money will not solve the problem. I look at test scores and one of the lowest funded schools in our county has the best scores. It is the mindset of the people: administrators, teachers, students, and parents that has to change throughout the state.

Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 8:31 am
Ghost,

Polo?

When I was in high school, we didn’t have polo, but I was on the water polo team. I had to give it up when my horse drowned.

Thank you, I’ll be here all the week. Tip your waitresses.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 9:08 am
Ghost,

I will gladly endorse your idea of “putting all the [property tax] money into one pot, despite the fact that I don’t think it is good policy.

Here’s why. It would take all of 10 minutes for the suburban voters to demand the massive reduction in their property taxes.

These fine suburban citizens are living under the delusion that it is their spending that is driving the results in their idyllic little towns.

The moment you tried to apply one dime of their property tax dollar to Chicago or East St. Louis bureaucracy instead of THEIR bureaucracy, they would cut off the flow of dollars - as they should.

Either way, (my way or yours) we would start heading in the proper direction, which is to fund children, not districts and other arbitrary entities that produce nothing but a drive to spend (waste) money.

Comment by Bruno Behrend Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:10 am
I don’t like it that schools have swimming pools, when mine didn’t have AC, but if the people in that district want to pay for it, let them.

I know that I’m stepping all over America’s “be true to your school” dogma by pointing this out but…

Did anyone every question the absurdity of every school needing/wanting a pool, stadium, another stadium, a new gym, etc etc etc.

We hosted my nephew here for a year, and he was amazed that every school had all these amenities. along with the class of bureaucrats (athletic directors and their entourage) to “manage” these assets.

In Germany (and many other countries), all that stuff is intramural, and they seem to be pretty good at sports.

Our property tax/district based funding system is designed to create a “keeping up with the Joneses” spending ratchet, as administrators, teachers, and school board members are always looking to the richest district to see what bauble they can point to put a referendum on the ballot. Next up, the Urban League points to the largess and demand equal money, which only ends up being spent on detritus like bureaucrats and the ephemeral benefits of “class size reduction.”

In closing, Patriot, it really ISN’T OK to “let them” spend the way they want because the basic argument made by the Urban League is accurate.

You can’t square the 14th Amendment equal protection clause and the “district based” school system.

Contrary to the intellectually unsound arguments put out by the Education Industry, if you think about it long enough, it becomes obvious that the ONLY education funding system that is Constitutional is one that funds the child directly.

Comment by Bruno Behrend Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 10:43 am
Bruno, schools are community centers, too, if you do it right. My high school is constantly hopping with extra-curricular activities, and not just for the kids. They bring the community together.

I don’t want to go on the European model, either. You test poorly in eighth grade, try getting into college.

For all the stuff government at all levels can waste money on, school facilities really aren’t one of them.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 11:25 am